site banner
PaperclipPerfector  9mo ago (text post)   1887 thread views

Wellness Wednesday for March 6, 2024

The Wednesday Wellness threads are meant to encourage users to ask for and provide advice and motivation to improve their lives. It isn't intended as a 'containment thread' and any content which could go here could instead be posted in its own thread. You could post:

  • Requests for advice and / or encouragement. On basically any topic and for any scale of problem.

  • Updates to let us know how you are doing. This provides valuable feedback on past advice / encouragement and will hopefully make people feel a little more motivated to follow through. If you want to be reminded to post your update, see the post titled 'update reminders', below.

  • Advice. This can be in response to a request for advice or just something that you think could be generally useful for many people here.

  • Encouragement. Probably best directed at specific users, but if you feel like just encouraging people in general I don't think anyone is going to object. I don't think I really need to say this, but just to be clear; encouragement should have a generally positive tone and not shame people (if people feel that shame might be an effective tool for motivating people, please discuss this so we can form a group consensus on how to use it rather than just trying it).

1
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I'd like to talk about Adderall.

A bit of background: I've had ADHD symptoms my whole life (though the hyperactive part greatly diminished in adulthood), but was never treated because I (a) won the lottery of fascinations (math and computers) and (b) have enough raw intelligence that I was able to excel academically through undergrad. Ever since I started grad school, however, my difficulty with focus has plagued my work, and though I managed to muddle through, I'm much less successful than you might otherwise expect, and my subpar (per my own standards, I guess) productivity at work has negatively impacted my mental health. I've been lucky if I can get a couple hours of productive work in a day -- and I don't mean "I had to go to meetings and that interrupted my flow state" (though there's that too) but "I got distracted by some math problem / thinking about a video game / reading a forum / etc and lost a couple hours with nothing to show for it". I've self-medicated a bit with coffee in the past, but I haven't used it as much recently as after a hiatus, I noticed that drinking enough to make any dent in my problem was also enough to cause me sleep trouble the following night (even if I only had it in the morning) and was very much not generally worth it. Somehow I'm still productive enough to keep a senior software engineer job without (many) complaints from management or coworkers, but I'm always feeling like I'm on the verge of failing to adequately do my job.

So my wife persuaded me that just maybe my persistent difficulty focusing on tasks is due to ADHD rather than being incorrigibly lazy. I saw a psychiatrist and she prescribed Adderall, 10mg up to 3 times daily. The pharmacy finally filled the prescription and I started taking it yesterday (Wednesday).

I took two doses yesterday: one at about 10:30 AM when I started work, and one at about 2:30 PM, about 20 minutes after I noticed the effects starting to wear off. The first dose was weird: it helped very noticeably with my ability to focus on a task, my ability to get started on a larger new task (previously I'd have to wait for the perfect moment psychologically for this), and my ability to maintain focus when switching tasks while waiting for a coworker to do code review. On the other hand, I got the jitters - as if I'd had too much coffee, or was very nervous about something, except that I wasn't nervous, I just had the somatic symptoms (this was really confusing). (Other than these jitters my fidgeting/pacing decreased.) The second dose had the same cognitive effects as the first, but without the jitters. I had as many productive hours in one day yesterday as I typically have in three (though it's worth noting that my usual distribution is highly uneven) and got a commensurate amount accomplished.

Miracle drug, right? Well, remember how drinking too much coffee would give me sleep troubles? Yeah, that. I had a hard time winding down last night (even though the mental effects had otherwise worn off), took longer than usual to fall asleep, and woke up in the wee hours of the morning and couldn't get back to sleep. This is not totally out of distribution for me (in fact it's similar to something I've had happen two or three times in the last month without any drugs) but it's suggestive. I'm pretty tired now, but not "I'm a zombie and can't function" tired, at least at the moment -- again, a bit unusual for how little sleep I got but not out of distribution. I really hope this goes away (or I can find a dosing regime that doesn't do this to me) because I really want to be consistently productive for once in my life.

My psychiatrist suggested when prescribing that I could cut the dose in half if I felt "high" or had significant side effects after the first few doses, or that I could try taking only one dose if it was effective enough to get me started on the right foot and I didn't crash after it wore off (which I didn't). I'm planning to take one or two 5mg doses today and see if it's still as effective; I don't want to screw up my currently fragile sleep even more.

Does anyone else here have experience with Adderall for ADHD? With insomnia as a side effect? With dosing (looking online, 10 mg per dose is a bit higher than normal for an initial dose)? Obviously I'll bring all the details to my psychiatrist next week for my followup, but there's bound to be some people here with the right experiences and insight to get some initial feedback or suggestions.

I only have access to methylphenidate, but the effects are much the same as what you described.

For the jitters and comedown, I strongly recommend l-theanine/green tea. Works wonders for me, and it made a nigh intolerable yet necessary medication only extremely aggravating. Adderall is supposed to be more pleasant, but the same applies. Alternatively, beta blockers help too, at least with the palpitations.

And as for insomnia, well, it's a potent stimulant. No way to really get around it short of building a tolerance, but you can ask for a sustained or extended release version that you take in the morning and which will hopefully wear off before you hit the hay.

I ordered an l-theanine supplement (green tea also has caffeine, I don't want to mix that in and I'm not a huge fan of the flavor anyway) on your advice; the palpitations and insomnia [edit: I think some of the insomnia is secondary to palpitations continuing way past the other effects] sucked (at least the serious jitters were only with the first dose). Would you recommend taking it with the Adderall or in the evening?

It's safe enough, so whenever the symptoms start is fine. I usually have a cup of green tea right after taking my methylphenidate, and then once again when the comedown begins.

I have nothing to add, but just wanted to say that I appreciate the writeup since I am in a pretty similar situation to you (pre-adderall). I actually have a stash that a colleague gave me, but haven't experimented with it yet because I'm expecting pretty much exactly the outcome you've had so far. Maybe the solution is to just take it on Fridays only?

An array index out of bounds error has crashed the EMR system.

How's your day going?

Oh, good. Fine. Nice, even.

Sorry homey.

You think I should raise a ticket using an MRI form or inject the ethernet cable with sedatives?

I hate the dentist.

I'm not scared of the dentist, I just hate everything about the office visit. I hate having to schedule appointments months in advance. I hate having to arrive 15 minutes before the appointment only to wait for 30 minutes before I'm escorted to a chair and another 10 minutes before the dentist sees me. I hate that the dentist is always trying to upsell me on tooth whitening products, and their business model is full of moral hazards. I hate that the dentist only provides "dumbed down" explanations of everything and can't answer my questions in any detail.

Nevertheless, I feel a need to go every few years in order to remove tartar from my teeth and verify there's no cavities. (I'm still not really sure why I should remove tartar from my teeth, though, as no dentist has been able to explain this to me other than it's "just what you should do because bacteria".)

/rant

I do think there are good dentists out there but man I agree. Sorry to any mottizens who are dentists but I really don’t feel like dentists deserve to be called doctors in any sense, they seem more like Nurse Practitioners if you’ve ever dealt with such people.

sure they’re knowledgeable but their “hit rate” in terms of good ones vs. seeing specialized doctors (what they claim to be) makes it apparent that they’re not in the same tier of healthcare professional.

Unless things are very different in your country compared to mine, I think you just need to look for a better dentist. Dentists are some of the least crappy people in the whole healthcare field in my experience.

Seconding @bolido_sentimental that it doesn't have to be that way. My dentist genuinely cares about doing the right thing for my teeth, always is happy to give me detailed answers to my questions, and is generally on time. Definitely would encourage you to look for a new dentist.

My personal experience has been that the smaller the practice, the more likely they are to give a shit. If it's "$city Dentistry" with 3-4 different dentists on staff, you might get good care but it's always going to be uncertain (the good dentist might quit, be unavailable, etc). Whereas if you go to Dr. so-and-so's personal practice, he is the guy and you will see him every time, plus he has a strong incentive to do right by his patients (so the business grows). A small practice like that can be harder to find, but I think it's worth the effort.

My dentist doesn't do any of that stuff, man. I just get cleanings and get occasional cavities filled. I have a 10+ year old crown that he could easily say, "Oh wow, yeah, that's beyond it's useful life" and I'd go with it. But instead he says, "It's still looking good, we'll check on it again next time." I don't think I've ever been there longer than one hour.

It doesn't have to be like that. Try a new dentist. Ask people you know to refer a good one.

About half of this past winter my family and I have had various overlapping viruses. We just had three week long respiratory virus, and now have a fever. This is probably because we're in two different elementary schools and a daycare, but I'm so incredibly tired of getting a new thing just as we're starting to get over the previous thing, and then lasting for weeks at a time.

My whole family caught some cough that's lasted months. One day had me bedridden because I'd coughed hard enough to strain a muscle. RSV, maybe? Covid testing negative and antibiotics did nothing. Not very contagious, but a disease that sticks around for 8 weeks (or more? I'm on the mend but not completely better...) can afford to take a couple of weeks to spread.

Just a virulent bronchitis, I think. I and everyone I know got it, and the cough persists for weeks if not months.

Anyone have a check in on Alaska wilderness trek guy?

He's still kicking. Recently hiked up a mountain to prepare.

I expect he didn't end up going.

I was wondering something about him. I think he got unbanned right before the great rollback - is he still banned after the restore?

He was banned much earlier than that. Half a year ago I think.

Right. I'm asking if he got unbanned again post-rollback, as I believe the timing was such that the old database snapshot would've still had him banned.

He is still banned

My recollection was that someone unbanned him at the request of someone who wanted to know how he was doing. But I may just be misremembering, or perhaps that decision was reversed.

Just chiming in to say you're not crazy and I remember that as well. I don't know if he ever actually got unbanned but I do remember someone saying they would unban him and then ban him again if he started only making posts about how hard it is to date women. It was in a friday fun thread.

I remember that. I thought it was @Amadan.

I did unban him. I think the unbanning also got rolled back during the forum reset a couple of weeks ago.

Finally got an abdominal MRI to investigate exocrine pancreatic insufficiency and very fortunately my pancreas and other organs look and work fine, my ducts are completely open, no sign of any damage or pancreatitis or tumors or cysts. I'm going to my doctor to figure out next steps, but I somehow have found myself on square one again having no idea what is causing all of my joint pain, itchiness, discomfort, trouble sleeping, and digestive trouble and bloating. It seems probable that I'm dealing with SIBO, but it feels like it's in the same league as CFS or chronic lyme or a bunch of other disease states that are likely real but have a huge overlap with questionable practices and science.

... for example: my doctor put me on a "natural" SIBO treatment a month or two ago, which included allicin and oregano oil. They first caused some of the worst mood fluctuations of my life, then after a couple weeks of stability caused significant and severe bloating, stomach pain, acid reflux, discomfort. I stopped and told my doctor that I'd like real antibiotic treatment, and perhaps to back up and confirm the SIBO (though this is also apparently not extremely precise).

I feel like digestive trouble has been a constant source of trouble in my life, and it's at the core of a lot of health challenges I've been facing the past 5-10 years. I really want to solve it, but it's very much a one step forward two steps back kind of scenario.

TLDR: I have a lazy, incompetent coworker that will not change his ways and my boss won't do anything about. My company is known for not firing incompetent people. How do I become okay with this?

Background

I work in a fast-pace manufacturing facility as an equipment engineer. Bob, my coworker in the same group, owns tools A-M and I own tools N-Z. We help each other's tools when one of us is out of the office. Our job is to make sure our tools are performing well and when they are, find ways to further improve the performance through projects. There is substantial overlap between our tools, but not 100%.

Problem

Bob is lazy and technically inept to the point that I do not allow him to make changes without my approval (this isn't official, but I just stonewall him until his laziness takes over). He did not complete any meaningful projects in 2023. He is difficult to work with due to his gruff and stubborn personality. During our group-wide weekly progress check-ins he only has excuses as to why he made no progress. He makes other people do his work for him.

This laziness can affect me when Bob is tasked with something that affects the entire group because either a) he will do it incorrectly, forcing me to go back and correct it, or b) won't do it at all/requires constant follow-ups. In the end it's just safer, better, and faster if I do it myself, thus putting more work on me and further enabling his laziness.

I have brought this up to our very-conflict-adverse manager, Charlie, on a regular basis over the past year and consistently get told he will talk to Bob, only for nothing to change. I've expressed my grievances in a lot of ways but to no avail. It's fucking infuriating and causes me major stress.

Solution?

Is this just something I have to get over? How do I get over this? Is there some Machiavellian tactic I can pull to force Bob to work harder or get fired altogether? (Although I'm scared about him working harder on technical projects due to the aforementioned ineptitude.) I've tried and tried and tried to become okay with this, but the situation completely contradicts my life philosophy that everyone should pull their weight in a group and live up to a certain standard of performance, both of which are being grossly violated by Bob (and Charlie, too, by not enforcing anything).

Is there some Machiavellian tactic I can pull to force Bob to work harder or get fired altogether?

Potentially, you could convince Bob that he would like some other job better. Then you could provide encouragement and support with helping him get another job.

It will probably be hard to convince Bob to pursue a new job, but you may know him well enough to figure out his motivations. Maybe you can appeal to his laziness by finding him an easier job that pays more. Maybe you can show concern that you think he may be let go by company for not performing, but you would like to help him find a new job before that happens.

I like to think this is the same Bob marrying the ex hooker from Sunday.

Can we make it a forum convention to just keep building Bob out in all advice posts?

Why do you care if Bob screws up? Obviously Charlie doesn't care, at least not enough to do anything. Just let Bob screw up. If it's clear that Bob "owns" a different set of responsibilities than you do, his screw ups should only reflect badly on him and might even make you look good by comparison. Either Charlie will wise up and do something about it or he won't. Either way not your problem.

Also I would consider looking for a new place to work, since poorly managed businesses usually don't do well in the long run.

Bob’s fuckups can affect me greatly. For example, if he doesn’t put documentation in place for the tools of his that I’m not familiar with and they break while he is unavailable, I’m stuck cleaning it up. Other projects he works on may negatively affect the entire fleet of tools, in some cases forcing me to answer despite it being his fault. And yes, I know this sounds ridiculous.

We have a new manager coming on that I’m hopeful will change things.

If Charlie doesn't care when Bob screws up, why would he care if you screw up due to Bob? Why are you "forced to answer" if Bob isn't? Is this an office politics situation where Charlie and Bob are friends or something?

Why would the following not work:

  1. Bob breaks a tool and there's no documentation.
  2. This negatively impacts your tools.
  3. Manager asks you "why are your tools fucking up?"
  4. You respond: "That's because of this thing Bob broke over here. He has no documentation for it, but I've alerted him to the problem. As soon as he fixes it my tools will work great. In the mean time I just have to wait for Bob to fix it."
  5. Manager: "You fix it."
  6. You: "No, that's Bob's tool and there's no documentation."

Because we are "supposed to be a team" and "supposed to help each other out". There's no refusing to work on things here because other people are incompetent. (Kind of crazy to say that out loud!) The nuances are difficult to explain over text.

Two more examples to help paint a picture:

  • Parts regularly fail on our tools and it is our responsibility to make sure we have them in stock, including parts that have never failed before. If I asked Bob to ensure we have stock of part1, but he doesn't do that and that part fails on my tool, then I'm still responsible—it doesn't matter that Bob's tools also use the part.

  • If Bob made a system-wide change and that messed up my tools, I would still be responsible and have to report out on it. I've been reprimanded before for "throwing others under the bus", despite it clearly and fully being their fault.

It seems you have rediscovered the ancient wisdom that the reward for hard work is more work. The office doesn't work based on objective principles (like any org will insist to its grave), it works on the squeaky wheel getting the grease—and the strongest links getting the heaviest loads. Don't get me wrong: being a star performer can have its benefits in the right orgs with the right incentives—but if they aren't there (which seems to be the case as evidenced by your frustration), there's absolutely nothing wrong about withholding that performance.

I imagine that at some point, you (probably implicitly) volunteered yourself to be Bob's fixer. Now that you've shown you can do it, it's expected. It's hard to unwind that expectation without drawing attention. You can't just up and stop fixing Bob's mistakes, but you can steadily fix them less and less. Your cover is that maybe his fuckups are getting worse and worse, or perhaps your own responsibilities are growing and you have less and less effort to offer for it. There are likely a dozen more angles of attack for someone who knows your situation as intimately as you do.

Don't explicitly offer these things as explanations, but try to weave them implicitly in the excuses that you offer for why you couldn't fix Bob's mistake in a timely manner that avoids pain for his higher ups. Leverage plausible deniability to the maximum extent. Feel out how much pain you can expose Bob's superiors to using which narratives as cover and lean in to the ones that work.

Good luck.

You talk a lot about how things are "supposed" to be, but it's clear that there are no consequences if things don't happen the way they are supposed to. So why does it matter what is "supposed" to happen?

There's no refusing to work on things here because other people are incompetent.

Then be incompetent like Bob, since there are no consequences for this and others will be forced to pick up your slack. If they tell you to fix Bob's mistakes, say "sure, I'll try" then just don't (or only try as hard as doesn't inconvenience you).

Parts regularly fail on our tools and it is our responsibility to make sure we have them in stock, including parts that have never failed before.

So order the parts you need for your tools. I don't see what this has to do with Bob.

If Bob made a system-wide change and that messed up my tools, I would still be responsible and have to report out on it.

So just factually report what happened, and "try" to fix it, but don't put in any extra effort because it's ultimately not your problem.

So when your tools fail, do what Bob does- let the criticism slide over you, make excuses, then move on, since apparently there are no actual consequences beyond verbal reprimands.

Do make sure to document everything to demonstrate you fill your responsibilities and any problems were because Bob's mistakes impeded you.

Your only real options probably are:

  1. Go over Charlie's head to his boss, but this may have negative outcomes for you.

  2. Stop covering for Bob. Let him work on your projects and when he messes up, document this to Charlie. Currently you are protecting Bob somewhat (for good reasons!). There still is no guarantee anything will change, but it will make Charlie have to work harder to ignore Bob's incompetence.

  3. Find another job. But you may find more Charlies and Bobs there.

  4. Accept this is out of your hands (at least for what you are willing to do) and find a way to live with it.

Notably 4) is the only transferrable option, that will help you live with Bob 2.0 later in your career.

  1. I cannot do for stated reasons.

  2. If Bob messes up, I potentially pay a lot for it in the form of work-life balance or reputation (even if it's Bob's fault, my name may still be attached to the mess-up).

  3. Grass is always greener and I love my job. It seems the world is full of Charlies and Bobs. I wonder how the frequency changes based on size, prestige, etc.

  4. I think this is the only option based on everything I've tried over the past year. Any advice here?

Stoicism is the virtue here I think, though I am not sure I can give you much advice, as it comes naturally to me. If all other options you can consider are off the table then Bob is simply a fact of life. There is no point worrying or getting annoyed at this, for it simply is. Just like there is no point in getting annoyed at gravity. Put in place whatever workarounds you need for your own work (which it seems you already have) then let go of Bob. He is simply not your problem.

Does it make you have to work harder? Yes but so does Earth's gravity being stronger than Mars. If you can't change it, then it is just part of the structure of your working life as immutable as gravity, technical debt and sales people overselling.

The darker option is to gently raise the subject with your other colleagues and if you trust them conspire to tell Charlie things about Bob where he must override his conflict averseness. He steals, he gropes women, he called Charlie a mealy mouthed useless piece of shit. You get the idea. Truth is irrelevant when we are trying to bypass an obstruction. From your description however it seems unlikely this is worth the risk as you are otherwise happy in your position.

There will always be Charlie's and Bob's, the main thing you can do is control how you feel about them.

While I don't think you need to change your attitude, I think it's helpful to understand that people rarely change their behaviour without there being some consequences or outside force that makes them do so.

There will always be Bob's in the world. Currently he's incentivised to continue his behaviour. Your boss's job is to make sure the work gets done. If your boss does not think their will be consequences for himself (such as being understaffed) he is limited in how much he will push Bob.

I'd look for other positions. I wouldn't tell your boss what you're doing or try to leverage 'if things don't change, I'll quit!'. I'd just quietly look for a better place for yourself that aligns with your own temperament (eg a job that doesn't force you to pick up other's slack in order to be diligent). It could be inside the same organisation or it could be somewhere new. Consider not taking roles where you are responsible for joint output and look for ones where you have your own deliverables that don't require other's input.

I'm dealing with a similar thing second hand right now with a close friend who has stakeholders in her job role that are blocking her from making changes to make her company more profitable. To do what she wants means more work for the blockers who are solely concerned with doing to bare minimum to meet their KPI's. They don't care about the company at all. Big agent/principal problem. Management are very slow to figure out the misaligned incentives, so my friend has to waste an unknown amount of time watching the blockers make excuses in meetings for why they don't want to find ways to make more profit until management figures it out. My friend has not surprisingly started looking for a new job in her spare time.

I strongly agree with your "people rarely change" statement and that's the attitude I have. I have tried to change the incentive structure for Bob by highlighting his massive shortcomings to Charlie, but to no avail as stated. I'll continue to brainstorm other ways.

I get a bit anxious in big groups where I don't know many of the people. The anxiety gets worse if the people are considered high status or "popular" in the high school/college sense (e.g., more attractive, partiers, frat guys, that kind of vibe). Examples of big group environments are popular bars and house parties (again, it gets worse with high status or so-called popular people).

Modesty aside, I'm fairly witty, sharp, and interesting when I'm around people I'm comfortable with, but I clam up when put in the aforementioned environments.

Things I've done to make it better:

  • Act like the person I'm talking to is already my friend

  • Find a way that I'm higher status than them

  • Convince myself that I don't care about the outcome of this interaction

  • Put myself in these situations more

Things I'm working on to make it better:

  • Improving my ability to talk to everyone, regardless of the topic. I mostly enjoy deep, intellectual convos and don't keep up with pop culture, sports, etc. I find surface-level convos boring and tend to detach myself if we move down that path. Maybe there's a minimum amount of "normie" (I hate that word, but you get the idea) topics I should keep up with?

  • Putting myself in these situations more

Any other suggestions are welcome!

  • Choose environments that you’re more comfortable in that naturally highlight your good qualities. Maybe something like a book club
  • Prepare and bring something thoughtful to share with people. In book club it could just be some interesting knowledge related to the chapter. At a house party it could be a homemade snack. The thing that you share should be something you put thought and effort to, not just something expensive.
  • This last point is very controversial, and you need to proceed with extreme caution. In party situations you can explore the use of psychoactive substances that do some combination of: (1) reduce your anxiety (2) increase confidence (3) make socializing more interesting/fun (4) don’t make you noticeably impaired.

  • The problem lies in I may not always get the choice. We're going to a house party or bar if my girlfriend wants to go (not that she's unreasonable in wanting to go there!). This is what makes me want to fix this issue.

  • I like the sharing idea. Maybe an activity or game could also work.

  • I have a history of being slightly reliant on substances to help ease social anxiety, so I will be avoiding this one. I think it can definitely work for some people.

Any "normie" topic can be turned into an "intellectual" topic. Just think of how the culture war infects everything, and imagine its not people doing it maliciously, but just doing it to have some relevance to topics they otherwise would know nothing about.

Some people are amenable to these conversational turns, others are very much not amenable. But your options in those cases are limited to: suffer, eject from the convo, or change topics and make them eject.

Respect your own time. Don't waste it in conversations you find boring. Though a boring conversation requires two to tango, you are always partly at fault if a conversation is boring. Start taking responsibility by ejecting or trying to alter the conversation to something more interesting.

I try to turn "normie" topic into deeper convos but it never sticks, and I can't tell if it's me or them. (I'm the common link, but they are also similar people, so it's difficult to tell.)

Ending boring conversations is something I can do better at. I'll have to practice ending them so as to not leave a sour taste in either of our mouths.

Well, for the most part I would say that making small talk with strangers is practice for conversations that you go into with a goal e.g. evaluating someone as a potential friend or romantic partner. Knowing how to share just enough personal information to build a rapport without weirding someone out or shifting the frame to keep people engaged are skills that need to be developed like any other. Most people do this subconsciously, but for others it requires focused attention. The people you are now good friends with and can have deep conversations with were once strangers after all, and you need a way to get from one to the other.

As far as specifics go, I'm not sure what you are trying to get out of your time at house parties or bars, but that is a question you should be asking yourself. You seem to be thinking a lot about your relative social status in a way that is somewhat foreign to me, but if you are trying to achieve high status and then leverage it to obtain something else, then you might be better served by seeking that other thing directly. Also, you don't need to study things that don't interest you just to have conversation starters, but they key is to keep up with something, whether it's the news or how to tie fishing lures, and then be able to identify connections between that thing and your interlocutor's personal experience.

If the only problem is anxiety, just expose yourself to these kinds of situations until you're no longer afraid. Sufficient amounts of repetition will make anything stop feeling scary.

Examples of big group environments are popular bars and house parties

What're you trying to get out of these situations?

I don't like any of those situations for their own sake, and reckon that's alright. Maybe you're trying to make a friend, find a date, or network? And then once you have friends, a romantic partner, and a good job, you'll mostly stop going to those events? Most of the mid 30s people I know have friends, a family, and a job, and mostly hang out with the social group they already have. The exceptions come across as slightly concerning -- mid 30s women living alone in New York and constantly posting on social media about the various bars and parties they're at.

I'm not especially high-status. I was the worst distance runner to qualify for a letter in track. The only reason I ever made sergeant in the military is because they promoted over half of all eligible E-4s. The main reason I'm a board member of a neighborhood organization is because the person stepping away had new familial obligations to attend to - and she hadn't lived in the area for years anyway.

I got to where I am by being present at the right place at the right time with an agreeable temperament - with a handy dose of preparation & persistence. If I thought like you did, I doubt I would have achieved what I've earned.

I wouldn't call small-talk interesting. But it's the quickest route to learn if people care about things - and what. It's okay to not be interested in what they care about. It's a social barrier to be proudly ignorant of what they care about. It's entirely possible to get intellectual about the history & patterns of one's relationships. You don't need to know about Georgian taxes or bell curves to have intellectual conversations. Most of the time - in my experience - that shit doesn't help anyway.

And conversation is also a two-way street. They need to know who you are, too. Is the other person likely to walk away with a good sense of who you are & what you're about?

As long as you can find a reason to follow up via email or text message the next day, I call that a conversational success. Just keep recalibrating until you find reasons at least half the time.

Are you literally in college, or just out of it, or does it just sound that way? Asking before getting into any kind of recommendations.

It just sounds that way. 26 years old and well into professional life.

Improving my ability to talk to everyone, regardless of the topic. I mostly enjoy deep, intellectual convos and don't keep up with pop culture, sports, etc. I find surface-level convos boring and tend to detach myself if we move down that path. Maybe there's a minimum amount of "normie" (I hate that word, but you get the idea) topics I should keep up with?

I think what you're failing at is approaching sports/pop culture/etc. at a deep intellectual level. You can have both!

My wife wanted to have her friends over to watch The Bachelor every week. At first I moaned and groaned. Then I decided to watch it like an autistic sports fan, and I discovered the Game of Roses podcast for people who watch The Bachelor like an autistic sports fan. I found a way to enjoy the show: what's the Rose Quotient? Is she going to play her Personal Trauma Card on this group date, or save the PTC for her 1on1 later? What does it mean when a contestant a high RQ and a solid 3rd audience game gets a 2on1 this early in the season?

This is a good idea if you're regularly interacting with (or married to) someone into somethign you're not. But it's overkill if OP just wants more general conversational grease.

Moreover, unless he's willing to become a sportsfan all the way, keeping up on the latest talking points will be a tedius waste of time. And he'll still end up bored and anxious of being discovered a fraud in sports talk. Honestly if you want to make good sports small talk with someone, it's probably better to know nothing about sports than to pretend you care. Consider this opener.

"You know I haven't really kept up with college basketball in a few years. Which schools are doing well these days?"

You'll get the sportsfan talking! and you don't have to pretend you know or follow anything. Plus, a little understood phenomenon - you now have the conversation's steering wheel, while the other one gets to talk and like you for getting to talk. Once you start trying to demonstrate your own knowledge or insert your own talk tracks, you actually lose control.

Instead, you can take the converstaion where you want it to by asking questions. Like history? Interject with historical questions. Like strategy and theory, ask a question about that. "So how does a good team get good..." Like the culture war, ask about that. "You think ratings have changed since ESPN has gotten woke?"

Want to get off sports? Let them give you a little schpeel, they'll like you for letting them talk. Then play a game with yourself to see how many questions takes you to X. Say, X is crypto. Sports... Sports Betting... Gambling... Crypto.

Unless, like in your scenario, the topic is regularly the center of the activity, there's no reason to pretend to like it or to learn about it just to make small talk. It will actually backfire (without a genuine interest) because you'll be bored AND worried about demonstrating your boring knowledge.

I don't normally do this, but it's spelled "tedious".

I appreciate your demonstration of how to not make good conversation.

Like I said, I don't usually do this, but you misspelled it twice and I couldn't resist.

This is fantastic, compelling conversation. Not tedius at all. Tell me more.

More comments

I find surface-level convos boring and tend to detach myself if we move down that path.

Of course some people really are duller than others, or just worse fits conversationally for each other. Some people do like more or less substantative discussions, more or less argument, more or less critique, etc.

But taken too far this becomes a cope. And it's best not to self-frame like that. Almost everyone enjoys a good conversation. If you want to check out of a tedius or boring conversation, by all mean, it's your right, and might be the best use of your time.

But recognize internally that it's usually because you don't have the patience or interest in fishing, and probably NOT that the other person likes standing with his pole in the water not catching bites.

Two people go out fishing. Both are bad at it or are in an unfamiliar lake. They fumble around, leading eachother to different spots, as often moving on too quickly from a promising spot for other's taste or linger too long in an apparently bad spot. Neither one has the confidence, knowledge of the lake, or strategy to lead, so they keep stepping on each other's (and their own) attempts at catching something.

After an unproduction adventure they both walk away thinking, "It's too bad that guy didn't want to catch any fish. What a waste of time."

Maybe there's a minimum amount of "normie" (I hate that word, but you get the idea) topics I should keep up with?

Thinking they're being charitable and getting the entirely wrong message, the fishermen later say to themselves

"Maybe I should spend more time practicing puttering around in bad fishing spots, since the other guy seemed to like that."

No, that's not necessary at all.

In small doses, any kind of conversation can be interesting. Even the guy who only wants to talk about the drugs he's ingested today or how hot various women are - a lot of people are like that, it's worth having some understanding of how and why! Those people are 99.9% the same pathways as you, just (on a cosmic scale) ever so slightly dumber and with different tendencies, and it's interesting how that shakes out. And surely, if you're so far above that, you should be able to participate competently.

you should be able to participate competently.

You can, but I think this perspective dismisses an important point.

People have limited metabolic energy and therefore must have a system of filtering information in the environment to avoid combinatorial explosion. If your relevance realization machinery focuses on mastering a domain and looking into the unsolved questions of the domain then you can start finding small talk far less relevant. It is taking time away from you making a potential contribution to the domain that could help many people.

Small talk becomes far less interesting when you get good at predicting what the other person will say because you’ve had similar conversations with other people. It is no longer a source of interesting/relevant information.

'relevance realization'? I feel like paragraph 1 is a fully general argument against e.g. having fun, randomly reading wikipedia pages to learn new things, or really anything other than 'working in the domain you specialize in', unless i'm misunderstanding, which is plausible.

I agree with paragraph 2. But there are a variety of people out there, with a variety of experiences, and there are a lot of potential things to talk about. The common man isn't an infinite well of wisdom, but if you can't get anything out of talking to random people at a reasonable frequently you're doing it wrong.

'relevance realization'?

I was using relevance realization to mean the process by which things motivate people, what arouses their energy, what attracts their attention, etc. Right now you probably aren't paying attention to the wall or the furniture even though it is in your environment, there is a process that puts it in the background as not important.

I feel like paragraph 1 is a fully general argument against e.g. having fun, randomly reading wikipedia pages to learn new things, or really anything other than 'working in the domain you specialize in', unless i'm misunderstanding, which is plausible.

You can find anything relevant, including just having fun. A drug addict finds drugs highly relevant and salient. I was indicating that there is a process that causes people to find certain things relevant and causes them to background other things. Relevance changes depending on context too (such as when someone is at work, and when they are at home).

but if you can't get anything out of talking to random people at a reasonable frequently you're doing it wrong.

It isn't that you can't get anything out of it. It is that you have limited time/energy and you can get similar things more efficiently. If you read certain books you will gain knowledge you find relevant at a faster pace than if you spent that time on small talk.

I think there's something weird going on with the way you're using that concept, but whatever.

I think translating out of that language - you're arguing that such conversations aren't a good way to get information on the margin, but I'm arguing that, if approached correctly, they are. It's the same reason I just read random comments/posts on all social media websites - it's both valuable and intrinsically interesting to learn about all the varied aspects of the human experience.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats